G
I believe what he says.
It would be easier to believe him if he included in his List of 7 the country that gave us the terrorists who shot up Orlando and San Bernardino. A hang nail is more of a threat to the U.S. than any of those tiddly-wink third-world countries.I believe what he says.
A Reminder on the Scale of Trump’s Action
A Department of Homeland Security official said the travel ban affected 375 travelers, 173 of whom were denied entry to the country prior to boarding flights headed to the U.S. The official said 109 people who were in transit to the U.S. were denied entry and 81 people were granted waivers because of their legal permanent resident or special immigrant visa status. This USA Today report has some more detail: A senior Homeland Security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to provide an operational update on Trump’s executive order, said the department quickly overhauled its screening procedures after Trump signed the order Friday. The department issued new guidance to its Customs and Border Protection officers in the field and adjusted its computerized targeting system to identify people who are barred entry through the executive order. The official said the order allowed legal permanent residents — known as green-card holders — and foreigners who were granted special visas for Iraqi and Afghan interpreters, to enter after undergoing a full background check and in-person interview. The official said 81 people made it through that process and were allowed to enter the country. The official said Homeland Security’s legal team was reviewing the New York federal judge’s Saturday ruling and that the department would adjust its practices in line with the order.
Has anything like this ever happened before?
Yes, President Obama barred Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011.
I am not excusing the chaos and mishandling of travelers all over the world, also green card and visa holders. This is shameful. The problem is incompetency; how the order was drafted and released to the agencies. Hopefully it is a learning curve, though it could very well do serious damage to Trump’s credibility on just about everything else he is trying to do. The left is running with the hysteria. Trump: as far as I know not amending the order to fix above issues; in a stupid stand off with the world.
If Trump, the candidate, almost always doubled down on his frequently offensive remarks, surely Trump, now the President, is bound to double down on his orders. And Trump may have no one to advise him to do otherwise, except perhaps family members, who are probably the only people he listens to.I am not excusing the chaos and mishandling of travelers all over the world, also green card and visa holders. This is shameful. The problem is incompetency; how the order was drafted and released to the agencies. Hopefully it is a learning curve, though it could very well do serious damage to Trump’s credibility on just about everything else he is trying to do. The left is running with the hysteria. Trump: as far as I know not amending the order to fix above issues; in a stupid stand off with the world.
Some Democrats as well as some Republicans support background checks as a requirement for some types of gun ownership because examples are legion of unbalanced individuals using some types of guns to commit mass murder in schools, theaters, and other places where people gather.Let me get this straight:
Democrats almost universally support strict, permanent laws requiring background checks on anyone who wants to purchase a firearm.
But when the President issues an Executive Order that initiates a temporary, 120-day freeze on immigration from countries that are known to be soft on terrorism so that the administration can have time to develop a better background check system for future immigrants, the Democrats:
If background checks are useful for keeping our citizens safe, why not apply them in the case of immigration as well as firearms purchases?
- Threaten to withhold tax funds (I’m looking at you, California),
- Talk of seceding from the Union (dittoes), and
- Introduce bills reversing the Executive Order (California Senator Barbara Boxer).
See also Refugees detained at US airports after Trump exec order for other responsesLet me get this straight:
Democrats almost universally support strict, permanent laws requiring background checks on anyone who wants to purchase a firearm.
But when the President issues an Executive Order that initiates a temporary, 120-day freeze on immigration from countries that are known to be soft on terrorism so that the administration can have time to develop a better background check system for future immigrants, the Democrats:
If background checks are useful for keeping our citizens safe, why not apply them in the case of immigration as well as firearms purchases?
- Threaten to withhold tax funds (I’m looking at you, California),
- Talk of seceding from the Union (dittoes), and
- Introduce bills reversing the Executive Order (California Senator Barbara Boxer).
Let me get this straight:
Democrats almost universally support strict, permanent laws requiring background checks on anyone who wants to purchase a firearm.
But when the President issues an Executive Order that initiates a temporary, 120-day freeze on immigration from countries that are known to be soft on terrorism so that the administration can have time to develop a better background check system for future immigrants, the Democrats:
If background checks are useful for keeping our citizens safe, why not apply them in the case of immigration as well as firearms purchases?
- Threaten to withhold tax funds (I’m looking at you, California),
- Talk of seceding from the Union (dittoes), and
- Introduce bills reversing the Executive Order (California Senator Barbara Boxer).
Some Democrats as well as some Republicans support background checks as a requirement for some types of gun ownership because examples are legion of unbalanced individuals using some types of guns to commit mass murder in schools, theaters, and other places where people gather.
There are many more instances of gun violence in the U.S. than instances of terrorism by Muslim immigrants. Has there been even one instance of a terrorist act by an Iranian immigrant? I don’t know of one. Before interrupting the travel of all Iranians including those with legal status in the U.S. who have gone through extensive background checks, wouldn’t a reasonable person expect there to be one instance, one threat of terrorism by an Iranian immigrant?
As do I and I am with President Trump 110% on this.I believe what he says.
The contents of the order itself are indeed pretty innocuous compared to the images of airports, protestors, foreign leaders round the world, freaked out, up in arms and on TV and social media by the thousands about it. Lot to learn from this lesson. I don’t think we’ll be bored under Trump, that is for sure.As do I and I am with President Trump 110% on this.
Furthermore, it is a constitutional right to bear arms. There is no such right in international law to immigrate to other countries. I know that the first two things you mentioned are illegal. Is Congress allowed to reverse them through bills?Let me get this straight:
Democrats almost universally support strict, permanent laws requiring background checks on anyone who wants to purchase a firearm.
But when the President issues an Executive Order that initiates a temporary, 120-day freeze on immigration from countries that are known to be soft on terrorism so that the administration can have time to develop a better background check system for future immigrants, the Democrats:
If background checks are useful for keeping our citizens safe, why not apply them in the case of immigration as well as firearms purchases?
- Threaten to withhold tax funds (I’m looking at you, California),
- Talk of seceding from the Union (dittoes), and
- Introduce bills reversing the Executive Order (California Senator Barbara Boxer).
From what I understand, which I will admit is a small amount, the incidents at the airports would lead me to think that the EO has been poorly executed, and has less to do with the actual contents of the EO.The contents of the order itself are indeed pretty innocuous compared to the images of airports, protestors, foreign leaders round the world, freaked out, up in arms and on TV and social media by the thousands about it. Lot to learn from this lesson. I don’t think we’ll be bored under Trump, that is for sure.
Since you’re cross-posting this (you posted the same thing in another thread), I’ll cross-post my response to you:Let me get this straight:
Democrats almost universally support strict, permanent laws requiring background checks on anyone who wants to purchase a firearm.
But when the President issues an Executive Order that initiates a temporary, 120-day freeze on immigration from countries that are known to be soft on terrorism so that the administration can have time to develop a better background check system for future immigrants, the Democrats:
If background checks are useful for keeping our citizens safe, why not apply them in the case of immigration as well as firearms purchases?
- Threaten to withhold tax funds (I’m looking at you, California),
- Talk of seceding from the Union (dittoes), and
- Introduce bills reversing the Executive Order (California Senator Barbara Boxer).
Right, that is my understanding too. Also I think there was some ambiguity as to whether the order applied to visa and green card holders, with DHS asserting that it does, which really messed up US visa holders travelling abroad. There were other issues too. My guess is normal protocol is to cross the Ts and dot the Is before going live with such an order. I think this is where ‘corporate’ ‘efficient’ Trump could get into trouble. The White House is not a business. You can’t just crank it out - you have to think about changing policy; talk to people about it. Revise, take (name removed by moderator)ut. A lot of work behind the scenes. In all fairness, I think he has very icy relations with the federal agencies for obvious reasons. So that could be part of the trouble too. They will sabotage him as soon as help him. (I am not saying anyone did that - Trump walked into this)From what I understand, which I will admit is a small amount, the incidents at the airports would lead me to think that the EO has been poorly executed, and has less to do with the actual contents of the EO.
Yes, I don’t think he’ll have any shortage of adversaries for however long he is in office. It is because of that that I I originally suspected that Congress will try to keep him on a tight leash. The Democratic party might be quick to impeach him, and I’m sure many Republicans in Congress are also wary.Right, that is my understanding too. Also I think there was some ambiguity as to whether the order applied to visa and green card holders, with DHS asserting that it does, which really messed up US visa holders travelling abroad. There were other issues too. My guess is normal protocol is to cross the Ts and dot the Is before going live with such an order. I think this is where ‘corporate’ ‘efficient’ Trump could get into trouble. The White House is not a business. You can’t just crank it out - you have to think about changing policy; talk to people about it. Revise, take (name removed by moderator)ut. A lot of work behind the scenes. In all fairness, I think he has very icy relations with the federal agencies for obvious reasons. So that could be part of the trouble too. They will sabotage him as soon as help him. (I am not saying anyone did that - Trump walked into this)